© 2021. The Authors. Published by Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) and Institute of Technology and Life Sciences (ITP).
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN), Committee on Agronomic Sciences JOURNAL OF WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT Institute of Technology and Life Sciences (ITP) 2021, No. 49 (IV–VI): 169–178; https://doi.org/10.24425/jwld.2021.137109 Available (PDF): https://www.itp.edu.pl/JWLD; http://journals.pan.pl/jwld
Received 16.02.2020 Reviewed 15.09.2020 Accepted 20.10.2020
Grape production assessment using surface and subsurface drip irrigation methods
Sharad J. KADBHANE
1)
, Vivek L. MANEKAR
2)1) Savitribai Phule Pune University, NDMVPS KBT College of Engineering, Nashik, Udoji Maratha Boarding Campus, 422013, Nashik, India
2) Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat, India
For citation: Kadbhane S.J., Manekar V.L. 2021. Grape production assessment using surface and subsurface drip irrigation methods.
Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 49 (IV–VI) p. 169–178. DOI 10.24425/jwld.2021.137109.
Abstract
The study involved experimental work implemented from April 2014 until March 2017. Its purpose was to observe grape production quality parameters, such as yield, water productivity, berry size and bio-mass. Different irrigation methods, such as drip irrigation (DI), drip irrigation with plastic mulching (DIPM), drip irrigation with organic mulching (DIOM), subsur- face irrigation with stone column (SISC), subsurface irrigation with mud pot (SIMP), and subsurface irrigation with plastic bottles (SIPB) have been used during the experimental work. The crop has been irrigated following the CROPWAT-8.0 model developed by the FAO. Climate parameters are obtained from the automatic weather station located near the experi- mental field. Based on experimental results and analyses, it has been observed that the drip irrigation with the plastic mulching method is the best for irrigation in terms of the grape yield comparing with all other methods due to its highest productivity of 35–40%. Subsurface irrigation with the plastic bottle method is found to be suitable as it gives 20% higher yield than the traditional drip irrigation method. The SIPB method shows the cost-benefit ratio of 112.3, whereas the DIPM method had the ratio of 36.6. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, it is concluded that the SIPB method is economically more viable as compared with all other methods. Hence, based on the findings, it is recommended to use drip irrigation with a plastic mulch- ing and drip irrigation with a plastic bottle as the best options to achieve grape productivity while using minimum water.
Key words: crop water requirement, irrigation with plastic bottles, organic mulch, plastic mulch, stone column, sustainable irrigation, water productivity
INTRODUCTION
Grape production involves a regular provision of water throughout the year. Therefore, at the water-scarce areas, sustainable production of grape is difficult. In arid areas, with continuous demand for the irrigation, water supply is needed to ensure supplemental irrigation [AYARS et al.
1999; WILLIAMS et al. 1988]. The volatility of rainfall and temperature regimes affect the physiology and productivity of grapevines, and thus it requires irrigation in drought- -prone areas [SAVI et al. 2018]. The average actual crop coefficient (Kcact) value estimated by HYDRUS-2D and simulated for grape grop is 0.27 [PHOGAT et al. 2017].
Subsurface drip irrigation was the treatment of the highest hydric comfort and greater weight per cluster and yield/vine [INTRIGLIOLO et al. 2016; PÉREZ et al. 2016]. Water
productivity indices related to pruning weight and grape yield have shown that vegetative growth in a temperate climate has an important influence on water use in vineyards [CANCELA et al. 2016; STEVENS et al. 2008; TEHRANI et al.
2016]. Most of the previous studies concluded that supplemental irrigation systems show significant improve- ments in the crop production in many regions of the world [FERERES, EVANS 2006; NGIGI et al. 2005; SHAHBAZ et al.
2006]. Maximizing production and enhancing water use efficiency are more feasible objectives using on-farm water management in arid regions [THEIB, AHMED 2006]. Some options of farm scale water management are rotations of crop, better use of rainfall, and creation of farm ponds to retain excess rainfall water for irrigation. On-farm water storage facilities can be used to satisfy the variable diurnal water demand during a required period and simultaneously e-ISSN 2083-4535
prevent water wastage [MEHTA, AKIRA 1992]. The efficient use of water has to become a global concern due to enhancing food production requirements with limited water availability [IPCC 2007; PÉREZ-ESCAMILLA 2017].
Poverty and hunger are the major challenges that arise glob- ally. India has set the goal for sustainable agriculture to be achieved through the use of advanced technology [CHATUR- VEDI et al. 2019]. There are critical issues related to irriga- tion, i.e. crop water demand and timely water application.
Due to scarcity of water, it is difficult to maintain consistent crop yield [GARUDKAR et al. 2011]. Hence, it is advisable to use of advanced irrigation methods for the optimum use of water.
In the present study, different irrigation methods have been designed separately for surface and subsurface irriga- tion. These include drip irrigation (DI) as a control method, drip irrigation with a plastic mulching (DIPM), drip irriga- tion with an organic mulching (DIOM), subsurface irriga- tion with a stone column (SISC), subsurface irrigation with a mud pot (SIMP) and subsurface irrigation with plastic bot- tles (SIPB), as described in detail by KADBHANE and MANE- KAR [2016]. Laterals and emitters are common in all above- mentioned irrigation methods. In the surface irrigation methods concerned, water is released into the atmosphere from the emitters. In the subsurface irrigation methods, water is directly applied to the root zone of the plant. A com- parative study between the different irrigation treatments has been executed through the field experiments carried out during three growing seasons (from April 2014 to March 2017) based on yield, water productivity, berry size, and bio-mass in the grape orchard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
STUDY AREA
In this study, experimentation work was carried out in April 2014 – March 2017. It focused on the ʽThomsonʼ grape (Vitis vinifera) orchard located at the Nashik district in the West Agro-Climatic Zone of India (WACZI) at 20°04’19” N, 73°54’05” E, and altitude is 585 m above sea level. The study area is a flat terrain, with semiarid climatic conditions, mean annual rainfall of 550 mm and maximum dry period in April to June. High surface temperature and low rainfall are the prominent characteristics of a semi-arid region. The study area has moderate rainfall and moderate temperature, hence it can be classified as a semi-arid region [SRINIAS et al. 2012]. Climatological monthly average data have been collected from the India Meteorological Depart- ment (IMD) and Nashik Meteorological station for the pe- riod of 1981–2013 (Fig. 1 a, b, c). The average monthly cli- matic data from the Nashik metrological station (1981–
2013) has shown that the annual total precipitation is 350 to 550 mm during the monsoon (rainy) season i.e. July to October. Maximum temperature has been recorded in the summer season, i.e. April to June, and minimum tempera- ture in the winter season, i.e. November to February. Other parameters, such as wind speed, sunshine hours, and evapo- transpiration (ETo) vary between seasons [KADBHANE, MANEKAR 2017].
Fig. 1. Monthly averaged climatological data (1981–2013);
a) maximum, minimum temperature (Tmax, Tmin) and precipitation (Peff); b) evapotranspiration (ETo) and relative
humidity (RH); c) wind speed (WS) and sunshine hours (SH);
source: own elaboration EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Initially, six different irrigation systems are designed, and installed in the field. The schematic view of six irriga- tion systems such as DI, DIPM, DIOM, SISC, SIMP and SIPB [KADBHANE, MANEKAR 2016] are shown in Fig. 2. In the grape orchard under the study, plant rows are placed in the North-South direction with 10 plants in a row with a one-meter spacing between them. Each row has been al- lotted for a different irrigation method. Between two irriga- tion methods, one row is compulsory blank to maintain dis- tance and avoid mixing of root zones. The distance between two rows is 2.1 m for convenience of labour and machines.
ANALYSIS OF THE CROP WATER DEMAND USING THE CROPWAT-8.0 MODEL
A farm pond is used for irrigation water supply. Grape plants are irrigated every 3–4-day for 4–6 hours as per the results of Equation (1). Planning of irrigation is based on
a)
b)
c)
Tmax, Tmin (°C) Peff (mm)
Months
Months
Months
ETo (mm∙d–1) RH (%) SH (h∙d–1)
WS (km∙h–1)
Fig. 2. Overview of six irrigation methods; DI = drip irrigation, DIPM = drip irrigation with plastic mulching, DIOM = drip irrigation with organic mulching, SISC = subsurface irrigation with stone column, SIMP = subsurface irrigation with mud pot,
SIPB = subsurface irrigation with plastic bottles;
source: own elaboration
a simple relationship, i.e. duration of drip irrigation and the use equation (1):
DI =𝑅𝐼∙𝑃𝐼∙𝑁𝐼𝑅∙1000
𝐸𝐶∙𝑁 (1)
where: DI = duration of irrigation (h), RI = the row distance (m), PI = plant distance (m), NIR = the net irrigation require- ment (m), EC = irrigation capacity (dm3∙h–1), N = the num- ber of emitters per plant.
Properties of soil and cropping technique are the same as per KADBHANE and MANEKAR [2016].
The CROPWAT-8.0 model developed by the FAO [1998] is used to calculate the water requirement of grape- vine. The main purpose of CROPWAT is to calculate irrig- ation schedule and crop water demand on the basis of input of data provided by the user in the prescribed format [GHAMARNIA et al. 2011]. CROPWAT calculation proce- dures are based on FAO guidelines [ALLEN et al. 1998]. The reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is a climatic parameter and can be computed from weather data. The FAO Penman–
Monteith theory is used to calculate the reference evapotran- spiration (ETo). The crop evapotranspiration (ETc) can be calculated as:
ETc = ETo∙Kc (2) where: Kc = crop coefficient.
The Penman–Monteith equation gives consistent per- formance and fairly accurate results in arid as well as humid climates. The FAO Penman–Monteith equation [ALLEN et al. 1998] mention as Equation (3):
𝐸𝑇𝑜=0.408∆(𝑅𝑛−𝐺)+𝛾
900
𝑇+273𝑢2(𝑒𝑠−𝑒𝑎)
∆+𝛾(1+0.34𝑢2) (3) where: ETo = the reference evapotranspiration (mm day–1),
∆ = the inclination of the vapor pressure curve (kPa∙°C–1), Rn = the net radiation at the crop surface (MJ m–2 day–1), G = the heat flux density of soil (MJ m–2 day–1), T = the mean of air temperature at 2 m height daily (°C), u2 = the
wind speed at 2 m height (m s–1), ea = the actual vapor pres- sure (kPa), γ = psychrometric constant (kPa °C–1), es = the saturation vapor pressure (kPa), es– ea = the deficit satura- tion vapor pressure (kPa).
GRAPE CROP MANAGEMENT
The phenological cycle of the grape plant in tropical and subtropical regions includes phases of dormancy, active vegetation, reproductive development, and growth. The grape plant has mainly six phenological stages i.e. bud breaking, vegetation growth, flowering, berry set, berry growth and ripening, and harvest [BAGGIOLINI 1952]. In the study area, grape plant generally has two pruning cycles, such as foundation pruning (from April to September) and fruit pruning (from October to March). Nearly about 90% of grape orchards are following this schedule except red vari- eties and grape yards located in the Northern region of the Nashik district. In particular climatic conditions, plant stages have played a vital role in the grape production [AD- SULE et al. 2013].
In the study area, there is a practice involving two prun- ing stages in a year. The first pruning takes place in April, known as foundation pruning. The first is germination, so there is no fruit for harvesting. The second coincides with the second week of October, and it is known as fruit pruning.
Seasonal Kc changes are affected by the climate (temperate vs. tropical) and crop age [BAGGIOLINI 1952]. The seasonal crop coefficients are different in two phases. Kc increases during active growth to the peak canopy size and decreases during leaf senescence. The relationship of Kc and the leaf area index cannot be unique due to large variation in a can- opy structure with pruning and training systems i.e. the link is different for decreasing or increasing of Kc [NETZER et al.
2009]. Hence, according to theory, above- mentioned Kc has taken values 0.7, 0.65, 0.75 in summer, rainy and winter sea- son simultaneously.
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
In the study area irrigation water is provided from dif- ferent sources like a well, pond with the conveying system like pipeline, laterals, and emitters. The DI method is com- monly used as an irrigation method and considered as the default irrigation method for the study area. This default method already consist of the conveying system. Hence, there is no extra cost for the remaining irrigation methods.
Therefore, whatever extra material and labor are required for other five methods, these are considered as a material cost in the analysis.
Being the default method, DI is eliminated from the cost-benefit analysis. The material and labor cost is con- sidered in the analysis based on the prevailing market rates.
Materials required and procured for different methods are as follows: (i) for the DIPM method – one meter wide and 100- micron thick plastic paper is chosen to cover the field; (ii) for the DIOM method – organic material purchased from agencies the organic material and the organic bio-mass after pruning is also used as the organic mulching material. The basalt aggregate of 2.5–3.0 cm is purchased from a nearby
quarry, mud pots of 10 cm diameter purchased from the local manufacturer for the SIMP method. Plastic bottles are purchased from scrap material shop for the SIPB method.
Plastic bottles are perforated 5 mm size pore at the outer surface and then placed in the excavated pit.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
To evaluate the impact of six irrigation methods on grape yield, and quality of fruit, an experimental study has been carried out and data collected for three years 1 April 2014 (pruning) to 25 March 2017 (harvesting). A statistical analysis has been carried out using Statistical Analysis ToolPak available with Microsoft Excel 2010. The statistic- al analysis, including mean values, standard deviation and coefficient of variance, is carried out for the processing of experimental results. Mean values are determined for ob- served parameters, standard deviation (SD) expresses how much members of a group differ from the mean value for the group, and coefficient of variance (CV) is the average of the squared differences from the mean [GUPTA 2018]. If the coefficient of variance value is lower, then result shows better performance. Observations of grape quality parame- ters have applied to ten grape plants in a single row per each of the six irrigation methods. The experimental observations are expressed in the form of parameters such as grape yield, water productivity, berry size and bio-mass. Water produc- tivity (kg·m–3) is defined as ratio of grape yield (kg·m–2) and irrigation amount (m3·m–2) [THEIB, AHMED 2006]. Grape pruning is the primary source of bio-mass (kg per plant) re- sulting from the management practice for both wine and table grapes [PERALBO-MOLINA, CASTRO 2013].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS AND IRRIGATION SCHEDULING
The evapotranspiration and effective rainfall was calcu- lated with the CROPWAT-8.0 model, as shown in Fig. 3. In the Figure 3, the data-wise net irrigation requirements (NIR, mm), irrigation water provided (IWP, mm), crop evapotran- spiration (ETc, mm) and effective precipitation (Pef, mm) are shown for the crop in 2014–2015, 2015–2016, and 2016–
2017. Irrigation water provided is calculated as per Equation (1).
The ETc was steady in all the three study years. Grape irrigation based upon evapotranspiration was found most suitable [INTRIGLIOLO et al. 2012]. The net irrigation re- quirement for growing seasons was the lowest in 2014–2015 when compared with other two study years. The difference is due to higher effective precipitation. Crop water demand was satisfied at the appropriate time using the all six irriga- tion methods.
IRRIGATION METHODS IMPACT ON GRAPE PRODUCTION
Statistical analysis of experimental results. Table 1 shows recorded data of grape yield, water productivity
(kg·m–3), berry size (mm), and bio-mass (kg per plant) with reference to six irrigation methods. Observations have covered 10 plants allotted to each irrigation method.
According to experimental results in Table 1, the drip irrigation with a plastic mulching (DIPM) method shows low coefficient of variance, which means higher perfor- mance on yield, water productivity and bio-mass, whereas, the subsurface irrigation with plastic bottles (SIPB) method shows good performance on water productivity and yield.
Hence, based on the performance, it is recommended that in the case of surface irrigation the DIPM method should be used, and in the case of subsurface irrigation the SIPB method is more suitable in the study area for enhancing the grape quality parameters.
Performance of the irrigation methods based on yield per plant. The box plot between grape yield (kg per plant) and the irrigation methods for the three study years of 2015- 2017 is shown in Fig. 4.
From the performance plot in Figure 4, it is observed that among six irrigation methods the DIPM method shows the highest yield as compared with all other methods and 35–40% more grape yield as compared to the drip irrigation (DI) method, a method which is commonly used in the study area. The SIPB method shows 25–35% more grape yield as compared with the DI method during the period under the study (2015–2017). The DIOM method shows 2–5% more grape yield as compared with the DI method during the study years. Subsurface irrigation with a stone column (SISC) and subsurface irrigation with a mud pot (SIMP) methods show 5–10% less grape yield as compared with the DI method.
In the cases of SISC and SIPM subsurface irrigation methods, the grape yield reduction is due to the labor and animal activity, the surface of the stone column get dis- turbed, and this results in lesser yields. As expected, higher or lower water availability due to irrigation and soil tillage management during berry development induced an increase or decrease in berry fresh weight, which is more evident in larger than smaller berries [BARROSO et al. 2017].
In the case of the SIPM, first water is dropped in a mud pot and then it percolates into the soil. Hence, most of the time, due to falling of surface material, there are chances of choking the mud pot and there are very high chances of breaking of the mud pot due to labor and animal activity.
Hence, with these disadvantages, the grape yield observed is lower as compared with the drip irrigation method. An- other cause of a reduced grape yield is a permanent defect in biochemical properties of soil. Even though biochemical properties of soil in this particular location have been checked before planting, soil properties vary from place to place [MANGALA 2006].
It is observed that DIPM and SIPB methods enhance grape yield and are recommended to be used in the study area. It has been concluded that the application of the appropriate amount of water is essential for plant performance and berry development. Indeed, moderate irrigation can maintain or even improve the fruit quality [MARTÍNEZ, RECA 2014; SIVILOTTI et al. 2005].
Fig. 3. Cumulative net irrigation requirements (NIR), irrigation water provided (IWP),
crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and effective precipitation (Pef): a) 2014–2015; b) 2015–2016; c) 2016–2017;
source: own study a)
b)
c)
Table 1. Experimental data for yield, water productivity (WP), berry size and bio-mass per six irrigation methods (2015–2017) Type
of irrigation Parameter
Value in year
2015 2016 2017
mean SD CV (%) mean SD CV (%) mean SD CV (%)
DI
yield (kg·plant–1) 5.9 1.0 17.4 6.5 1.8 27.9 6.2 1.3 20.8
WP (kg·m–3) 9.6 1.7 17.4 10.1 2.3 23.0 10.0 2.1 20.8
berry size (mm) 18.3 1.0 5.5 19.4 0.8 4.1 17.3 0.8 4.7
bio-mass (kg·plant–1) 5.6 0.6 11.6 6.1 0.7 12.1 5.6 0.7 13.0
DIPM
yield (kg·plant–1) 9.5 1.3 13.5 10.4 1.4 13.1 10.0 1.3 13.3
WP (kg·m–3) 15.4 2.1 13.5 16.8 2.1 12.5 16.0 2.0 12.5
berry size (mm) 19.0 1.3 6.7 20.0 1.3 6.3 20.2 0.9 4.4
bio-mass (kg·plant–1) 7.7 0.7 9.2 8.1 0.6 7.8 7.8 0.8 10.4
DIOM
yield (kg·plant–1) 6.4 1.3 19.9 7.0 1.2 17.0 6.7 1.2 17.9
WP (kg·m–3) 10.3 2.0 19.9 11.3 1.9 17.0 10.8 1.9 17.9
berry size (mm) 17.6 1.2 6.8 20.0 1.8 8.9 18.6 1.3 6.9
bio-mass (kg·plant–1) 6.9 0.7 10.6 7.3 0.7 10.1 6.8 0.7 10.9
SISC
yield (kg·plant–1) 4.7 0.8 16.6 5.6 1.4 25.4 5.2 1.0 19.8
WP (kg·m–3) 7.6 1.3 16.6 9.0 2.3 25.4 8.3 1.7 19.8
berry size (mm) 17.1 0.9 5.5 18.0 1.3 7.0 17.8 1.2 6.6
bio-mass (kg·plant–1) 6.5 0.7 10.3 6.8 0.6 8.7 6.3 0.6 9.6
SIMP
yield (kg·plant–1) 5.3 1.2 22.3 5.2 1.0 20.0 5.3 0.7 13.5
WP (kg·m–3) 8.6 1.9 22.3 8.5 1.7 20.0 8.5 1.1 13.5
berry size (mm) 17.7 1.0 5.7 19.2 1.0 5.1 18.5 0.9 5.1
bio-mass (kg·plant–1) 7.2 0.6 7.8 7.0 0.5 7.6 7.1 0.6 8.8
SIPB
yield (kg·plant–1) 9.0 1.8 20.2 9.2 1.8 19.7 9.2 1.1 12.3
WP (kg·m–3) 13.9 2.0 14.1 15.4 2.3 14.9 14.8 1.6 11.1
berry size (mm) 17.8 0.9 4.9 19.6 2.2 11.5 19.0 1.1 5.6
bio-mass (kg·plant–1) 7.0 0.9 13.5 7.3 0.8 11.5 6.9 0.9 13.6
Explanations: SD = standard deviation, CV = coefficient of variance, DI = drip irrigation, DIPM = drip irrigation with plastic mulching, DIOM = drip irrigation with organic mulching, SISC = subsurface irrigation with stone column, SIMP = subsurface irrigation with mud pot, SIPB = subsurface irrigation with plastic bottles.
Source: own study.
Fig. 4. Box plot of tested irrigation methods based on grape yield (2015–2017);
DI, DIPM, DIOM, SISC, SIMP, SIBP as in Fig. 1; source: own study
PERFORMANCE OF THE IRRIGATION METHODS BASED ON THE WATER PRODUCTIVITY
The box plot between water productivity (kg·m–3) and the irrigation methods during 2015–2017) is shown in Fig.
5.
It is observed from Figure 5 that the DIPM method shows 35–40% more water productivity as compared with the DI method, a method which is commonly used in the study area during the period under the study (2015–2017).
The SIPB method also shows 20–25% more water produc- tivity as compared with the DI method. The drip irrigation
with organic mulching (DIOM) method also shows 10–13%
more water productivity as compared with the DI method during the three study years. But SISC and SIMP methods show 8–12% less water productivity as compared with the DI method. Hence, it is concluded that DIPM and SIPB methods enhance water productivity and are recommended in the study area. Surface and subsurface irrigation methods show varying results for water productivity. Mulching and subsurface irrigation treatments supposed to save 40% of water without compromising total yield and its components.
It should also increase water use efficiency by about 40%
[CONESA et al. 2015; SIVILOTTI et al. 2005].
Grape yield per plant (kg)
Irrigation methods and crop years
Fig. 5. Box plot of tested irrigation methods based on water productivity (2015–2017);
DI, DIPM, DIOM, SISC, SIMP, SIBP as in Fig. 1; source: own study
Fig. 6. Box plot of tested irrigation methods based on berry size (2015–2017);
DI, DIPM, DIOM, SISC, SIMP, SIBP as in Fig. 1; source: own study Performance of the irrigation methods based on the
berry size. The box plot between berry size (mm) and the irrigation methods for the three study years (from 2015 to 2017) is shown in Fig. 6. According to the quality of table grape, big size grapes (more the 17 mm) are best for export.
According to Figure 6, the DIPM method shows 10–
18% more berry size as compared with the DI method dur- ing the study period (2015–2017). The DIOM method also shows 5–8% more berry size as compared with the DI method. The SIPB method also shows 5–12% more berry size as compared with the DI method. But SISC and SIMP methods show 5–8% smaller berry size as compared with the DI method. Hence, the DIPM and the SIPB methods are more beneficial to increase the berry size. Surface and sub- surface irrigation methods show different results regarding the berry size. The lower supply of water and carbohydrates during the berry growth period could possibly have induced reduced berry expansion [CHAVES et al. 2010].
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE IRRIGATION METHODS BASED ON THE BIO-MASS
The box plot between bio-mass and the irrigation meth- ods during the study years (from 2015 to 2017) is shown in Fig. 7.
According to Figure 7, the DIPM method shows 11–
18% more bio-mass as compared with the DI method during the study period (2015–2017). The DIOM and SIPB meth- ods show 2–3% and 1–3%, respectively, more bio-mass as compared with the DI method. SISC and SIMP methods show 4–7% less bio-mass as compared with the DI method.
Hence, the DIPM and SIPB methods are recommended to be used in study area to increase the bio-mass. Timely water provision to the grape plant resulted in good growth of leaf and branches. It is suggested that bio-mass growth processes are very sensitive to water stress. However, it also depends on the variety [MATHEWS,ANDERSON 1989;ROBY,MAT- THEWS 2004].
Based on the study, it is recommended that DIPM and SIPB methods should be used to enhance the measured grape parameters. However, it is necessary to validate the recommended methods against the cost-benefit analysis.
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF IRRIGATION METHODS To estimate benefits the average grape yield and quality (berry size) of fruit using each irrigation method have been taken into considerations. The yield and offered market rates are always found higher for grapes grown using DIPM, DIOM, and SIPB irrigation methods. This is due to the fact
Irrigation methods and crop years Grape water productivity (kg∙m–3)
Irrigation methods and crop years
Grape berry size (mm)
Fig. 7. Box plot of tested irrigation methods based on bio-mass (2015–2017); DI, DIPM, DIOM, SISC, SIMP, SIBP as in Fig. 1; source: own study
that timely provision of water resulted in the production of the best quality grapes. Results of the cost-benefit analysis for the irrigation methods are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Results of benefit-cost analysis of experimented irrigation methods
Cost and benefit per plant DIPM DIOM SISC SIMP SIPB A – the gross cost of material
(USD) 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.27 0.05
B – labour charges (USD) 0.04 0.07 0.27 0.09 0.16 C – sum of material and la-
bour (A + B) (USD) 0.08 0.15 0.41 0.36 0.22 D – life of materials (years) 1 1 6 5 10 E – the total cost per year
(C/D) (USD) 0.08 0.15 0.07 0.07 0.02
F – three years average yearly yield (kg) of designed method minus three years average yearly yield (kg) of DI method
0.05 0.01 –0.01 –0.01 0.04
G – average market rate
(USD∙kg–1) 0.81 0.81 0.41 0.41 0.81
H – net benefit per year per
plant (K = (F∙G) – E) (USD) 2.97 0.23 –0.49 –0.45 2.43 I – benefit cost ratio (I = H/E) 36.6 1.6 –7.3 –6.2 112.3 Explanations: DIPM, DIOM, SISC, SIMP, SIPB as in Tab. 1.
Source: own study.
According to Table 2, the SIPB method shows the high- est cost-benefit ratio of 112.3, whereas the DIPM method shows 36.6, i.e. these two methods are economically more viable as compared with other methods. According to the results shown in Table 2, the DIPM irrigation method shows a higher average yearly yield of 3.76 kg per plant than the DI method, whereas the SIPB shows a yield of 3.02 kg per plant more than the DI method. It is also experimentally verified that in the case of DIPM, DIOM and SIPB, high- -quality grapes are grown as well. In the market, these are recognized as export quality grapes. Market rates offered for this quality grape is almost double as compared with low- quality grapes. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, it is con- cluded that the SIPB method is economically more viable as compared with the DIPM method. It is because in this method waste plastic bottles are recycled.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the experimental study in 2014–2017, ex- perimental grape yield, water productivity, berry size and bio-mass show different results for different irrigation methods. It is observed that in case of grape yield, water productivity, berry size, and bio-mass, the DIPM and SIPB show the best performance, whereas the SISC and SIPM methods show poor performance as compared with the DI irrigation method. Hence, the DIPM method is recom- mended in case of surface irrigation and the SIPB method in case of subsurface irrigation for better quality and quantity of grape production in the study area. The DIPM method shows cost-benefit ratio of 36.6, whereas for the SIPB it is 112.3. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, it is concluded that the SIPB method is economically more viable as com- pared with all other irrigation methods because waste plastic bottles are recycled and the cost is negligible. According to experimental results and cost-benefit analysis, the SIPB is the best irrigation method in crop and climate conditions similar to the study area. Hence, the SIPB irrigation method is strongly recommended to grape farmers in study area.
REFERENCES
ADSULE P.G.,YADAV D.S.,UPADHYAY A.,SATISHA J.,SHARMA
A.K. 2013. Good agriculture practices for production of qual- ity table grapes [online]. Pune. National Research Centre for Grapes pp. 57. [Access 10.01.2020]. Available at:
https://nrcgrapes.icar.gov.in/zipfiles/GAPTa- bleGrapes18Feb2013.pdf
ALLEN R.,PEREIRA L.S.,RAES D.,SMITH M. 1998. Crop evapotran- spiration – Guidelines for computing crop water require- ments. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. Rome, Italy pp. 17–27.
AYARS J.E.,PHENEB C.J.,HUTMACHER R.B. 1999. Subsurface drip irrigation of row crops: A review of 15 years of research at the water management research laboratory. Agricultural Water Management. Vol. 42. Iss. 1 pp. 1–27. DOI 10.1016/
S0378-3774(99)00025-6.
BAGGIOLINI M. 1952. Les stades repères dans le développement annuel de la vigne el leur utilisation 477 practique [The mile- stones in the annual development of the vine and their practical
Irrigation methods and crop years Grape biomass (kg∙plant–1)
use 477]. Revue romande d'agriculture et de viticulture. Vol. 8 p. 4–6.
BARROSO J.M., POMBEIRO L., RATO A.E. 2017. Impacts of crop level, soil and irrigation management in grape berries of cv
‘Trincadeira’ (Vitis vinifera L.). Journal of Wine Research.
Vol. 28. Iss. 1 p. 1–12. DOI 10.1080/09571264.2016.1238350.
CANCELA J.J., TRIGO-CÓRDOBA E., MARTÍNEZ E.M., REY B.J., BOUZAS-CID Y., FANDIÑO M., MIRÁS-AVALOS J.M. 2016. Ef- fects of climate variability on irrigation scheduling in white va- rieties of Vitis vinifera (L.) of NW Spain. Agricultural Water Management. Vol. 170 p. 99–109. DOI 10.1016/j.agwat.
2016.01.004.
CHATURVEDI S.,JAMES T.C.,SAHA S.,SHAW P. 2019. Introduction:
Sustainable development goals and India. In: 2030 Agenda and India: Moving from quantity to quality. Eds. S. Chaturvedi, T.C. James, S. Saha, P. Shaw. Singapore. Springer p. 1–13.
CHAVES M.M.,ZARROUK O.,FRANCISCO R.,COSTA J.M.,SANTOS
T., REGALADO A.P., RODRIGUES M.L., LOPES C.M. 2010.
Grapevine under deficit irrigation: Hints from physiological and molecular data. Annals Botany. Vol. 105. Iss. 5 pp. 661–
676. DOI 10.1093/aob/mcq030.
CONESA M.R.,NATALIA F.,JOSÉ M.,ROSA D.L. 2015. Post-verai- son deficit irrigation regimes enhance berry coloration and health-promoting bioactive compounds in ʽCrimson Seedlessʼ table grapes. Agricultural Water Management. Vol. 163 p. 9–
18. DOI 10.1016/j.agwat.2015.08.026.
FAO 1998. CROPWAT [online]. Geneva. Food and Agriculture Organization. [Access 10.01.2020]. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/crop- wat/en/
FERERES E.,EVANS R.G. 2006. Irrigation of fruit trees and vines:
An introduction. Irrigation Science. Vol. 24. Iss. 2 p. 55–57.
DOI 10.1007/s00271-005-0019-3.
GARUDKAR A.S.,RASTOGI A.K.,ELDHO T.I.,GORANTIWAR S.D.
2011. Optimal reservoir release policy considering hetero- geneity of command area of elitist genetic algorithm. Journal of Water Resource Management. Vol. 25 p. 3863–3881. DOI 10.1007/s11269-011-9892-0.
GHAMARNIA H.,ARJI I.,SEPEHRI S.,NOROZPOUR S.,KHODAEI E.
2011. Evaluation and comparison of drip and conventional ir- rigation methods on sugar beets in a semiarid region. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. Vol. 138. Iss. 1 p. 90–
97. DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000362.
GUPTA S.G. 2018. Fundamental of statistics. Himalaya Publishing House. ISBN 9350517698 pp. 1234.
INTRIGLIOLO D.S., LIZAMA V., GARCÍA-ESPARZA M.J., ABRIS- QUETA I.,ÁLVAREZ I. 2016. Effects of post-veraison irrigation regime on Cabernet Sauvignon grapevines in Valencia, Spain:
Yield and grape composition. Agricultural Water Manage- ment. Vol. 170 p. 110–119. DOI 10.1016/j.agwat.2015.
10.020.
INTRIGLIOLO D.S., PÉREZ D., RISCO D. YEVES A., CASTEL J.R.
2012. Yield components and grape composition responses to seasonal water deficits in Tempranillo grapevines. Irrigation Science. Vol. 30 p. 339–349. DOI 10.1007/s00271-012-0354- 0.
IPCC 2007. Climate change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Re- port of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Core Writing Team. Eds. R.K. Pachauri, A. Reisinger]. Geneva, Switzerland. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
ISBN 92-9169-122-4 pp. 104. DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511546 013.
KADBHANE S.J.,MANEKAR V.L. 2016. An experimental study of the surface and subsurface irrigation methods with respect to soil moisture on grape yard. Journal of Water and Land Devel- opment. Vol. 31 p. 73–85. DOI 10.1515/jwld-2016-0038.
KADBHANE S.J.,MANEKAR V.L. 2017. An experimental study on the grape orchard: Effects comparison of two irrigation sys- tems. Journal of Water and Land Development. Vol. 32 p. 41–
51. DOI 10.1515/jwld-2017-0005.
MANGALA R. 2006. Handbook of agriculture. New Delhi. Indian Council of Agriculture Research. ISBN 81-7164-050-8 pp.
1618.
MARTÍNEZ J.,RECA J. 2014. Water use efficiency of surface drip irrigation versus an alternative subsurface drip irrigation method. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. Vol.
745. Iss. 1 p. 733–743. DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.
0000745.
MATHEWS M.A.,ANDERSON M.M. 1989. Reproductive develop- ment in grape (Vitis vinifera): Responses to seasonal water deficits. American Journal of Ecology and Viticulture. Vol. 40 p. 52–60.
MEHTA B.K.,AKIRA G. 1992. Design and operation of on-farm ir- rigation ponds. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering.
Vol. 118. Iss. 5 p. 1388–1403. DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)0733- 9437(1992)118:5(659).
NETZER Y.,YAO C.R.,SHENKER M.,BRAVDO B.A.,SCHWARTZ A.
2009. Water use and the development of seasonal crop coeffi- cients for Superior Seedless grapevines trained to an open- gable trellis system. Irrigation Science. Vol. 27 p. 109–120.
DOI 10.1007/s00271-008-0124-1.
NGIGI S.N.,SAVENIJE H.H.G..,THOME J.N., ROCKSTRÖM J.,PEN- NING DE VRIES F.W.T. 2005. Agro-hydrological evaluation of on-farm rainwater storage systems for supplemental irrigation in Laikipia district Kenya. Agriculture Water Management.
Vol. 73 p. 21–41. DOI 10.1016/j.agwat.2004.09.021.
PERALBO-MOLINA Á.,CASTRO M. 2013. Potential of residues from the Mediterranean agriculture and agri-food industry. Trends Food Science Technology. Vol. 32 p. 16–24. DOI 10.1016/
j.tifs. 2013.03.007.
PÉREZ E.M.M.,SANJURJO B.J.R.,BEIRO M.F.,BARRIO J.J.C. 2016.
Impact of water stress and nutrition on Vitis vinifera cv. ‘Al- bariño’: Soil-plant water relationships, cumulative effects and productivity. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol.
14. Iss. 1 p. e1202. DOI 10.5424/sjar/2016141-7534.
PÉREZ-ESCAMILLA R. 2017. Food security and the 2015–2030 sus- tainable development goals: From human to planetary health:
Perspectives and opinions. Current Developments in Nutrition.
Vol. 1. Iss. 7, e000513. DOI 10.3945/cdn.117.000513.
PHOGAT V.,SKEWES M.A.,MCCARTHY M.G.,COX J.W.,ŠIMŮNEK
J.,PETRIE P.R. 2017. Evaluation of crop coefficients, water productivity, and water balance components for wine grapes irrigated at different deficit levels by a sub-surface drip. Agri- cultural Water Management. Vol. 180 p. 22–34. DOI 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.10.016.
ROBY G.,MATTHEWS M.A. 2004. Relative proportions of seed, skin and flesh, in ripe berries from Cabernet Sauvignon grape- vines grown in a vineyard either well irrigated or underwater deficit. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research. Vol.
10 p. 74–82. DOI 10.1111/j.1755-0238.2004.tb00009.x.
SAVI T.,PETRUZZELLIS F.,MARTELLOS S.,STENNI B.,DAL BORGO
A.,ZINI L.,LISJAK K.,NARDINI A. 2018. Vineyard water rela- tions in a karstic area: deep roots and irrigation management.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. Vol. 263 p. 53–59.
DOI 10.1016/j.agee.2018.05.009.
SIVILOTTI P.,BONETTO C.,PALADIN M.,PETERLUNGER E. 2005. Ef- fect of soil moisture availability on merlot: From leaf water potential to the grape composition. American Journal of Ecol- ogy and Viticulture. Vol. 56 p. 9–18.
SRINIAS C.V.,MURTY VITTAL K.P.R.,MURTY KRISHNA Y.V.N.
2012. Identification of arid and drought prone areas from re- mote sensing based land surface parameters – a study from
a tropical region, Maharashtra, India. Asian Journal of Geoin- formatics. Vol. 12. Iss. 3 p. 1–16.
STEVENS R.M.,PECH J.M.,GIBBERD M.R.,WALKER R.R.,JONES
J.A.,TAYLOR J.,NICHOLAS P.R. 2008. Effect of reduced irriga- tion on growth, yield, ripening rates and water relations of Chardonnay vines grafted to five rootstocks. Australian Jour- nal of Grape and Wine Research. Vol. 14. Iss. 3 p. 177–190.
DOI 10.1111/j.1755-0238.2008.00018.x.
TEHRANI M.M., KAMGAR-HAGHIGHI A.A., RAZZAGHI F., SEPASKHAH A.R.,ZAND-PARSA S.,ESHGHI S. 2016. Physiolog- ical and yield responses of rainfed grapevine under different supplemental irrigation regimes in Fars province, Iran. Scientia
Horticulturae. Vol. 202 p. 133–141. DOI 10.1016/j.scienta.
2016.02.036.
THEIB O.,AHMED H. 2006. Water harvesting and supplemental ir- rigation for improved water productivity of dry farming sys- tems in West Asia and North Africa. Agricultural Water Man- agement. Vol. 80(1–3) p. 57–73. DOI 10.1016/j.agwat.2005.
07.004.
WILLIAMS G.D., FAUTLEY R.A., JONES K.H., STEWART R.B., WHEATON E.E. 1988. Estimating effects of climatic change on agriculture in Saskatchewan, Canada. In: The impact of climatic variations on agriculture. Vol. 1. Assessments in cool temperate and cold regions.
